UPDATE: PBS Admits to a “mistake” on my point about Dr. Edward Teller’s signature see below…
Live chat on now – join in (ended, my two questions were ignored, as were many others.)
The producer and host of the “Climate of Doubt” Frontline program will be on a live chat at 1 p.m. ET. Good chance to challenge them on their omissions and misleading “reporting.”
Login here:
UPDATE: Here are two messages placed side by side from the live chat showing that PBS has reacted to my point about Dr. Edward Teller’s signature. Catherine Upin is a co-writer of the program:
No mention as to the rationale of the “late stage production decision” only that it was a mistake.
well, as usual Anthony was right wrt to the blurred image…a “last minute’ decision…a Mistake. Oh, so sad.
I have a feeling they will “edit” the quetions.
Yeah questions are being pre-moderated. Mine has yet to appear (“What exactly is it you think the “scientific consensus position” is?”)
I have been watching the comments on this live chat and it gives the sense of a climate alarmist consolation chat. They seem a bit sad, and disappointed that it has come to this. The reason why new students are wary of going into study climate change is only seen in the light of fear, that the students are afraid of the way skeptics will expose their emails and so on, but not the possibility that these students realise that all is not well in their field of interest.
no doubt they are getting large numbers of questions….so they have to filter most of the OUT.
this is pretty much a joke
I’m getting the sense that not many questions are being allowed through …. could be wrong, but so far the action seems on the light side …
.
well,, i learned one thing Merchants of Doubt. was pretty influential for them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
I agree there were some problems with the programme, but it only had an hour to explain things. I wish a larger variety of scientists had been interviewed, but we know that the vast majority of climate scientists would just say similar things to Hayhoe, Dessler, Schmidt etc.
Overall I thought it was very good with pretty clear coverage of the actual science behind some of the claims. But they could have talked about how 2 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat are being added to the oceans every second which clearly shows to me how ridiculous the ‘warming has stopped’ meme is.
However, I work in a climate science department so I guess my viewpoint is skewed. I wonder how well the facts came across to the general public?
So far, here’s the exchange btw Heartland and Hockenberry:
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Heartland Institute@HeartlandInstHey,
@JHockenberry. Why didn’t you even call us to ask us about our funding? Isn’t that what honorable journalists do? #ClimateOfDoubt
John Hockenberry:
Oh for heaven’s sake, folks at Heartland, that is absurd. I did not personally call you. Our team reached out twice for an interview with your head Joe Bast and was refused. We spoke extensively about funding sources with your colleague James Taylor who appeared in our film. We went to your conference and spoke with your participants. Would you like to discuss whether I am an honorable journalist or who is funding you? I’m confused. We made numerous contacts at Heartland. Say hello to Mr. Taylor for me and thank him once again for his candor.
Comment From Jim Lakely (Heartland)
John, I’m guessing James Taylor told you Exxon is not a big funder, stopped giving gifts in 2006 — two years before we held our first climate conference. If not, now you know.
John Hockenberry:
Mr. Lakely That’s exactly what we got from Taylor and reported it in our film. I guess the nuanced point that the money cut off more than 5 years ago preceded your conference but not your institute is worthy. But I dont’t think you are saying that “Heartland decided to refuse money from the fossile fuel industry after 2006.” If Exxon had offerred I wonder what you might have done? Taylor made it seem as though Heartland had no problem with its Exxon connection and would be happy if they were funders again.
Here’s my question…
Doubt and uncertainty are a natural part of science. It is simply incorrect to take a scientific result and ignore the errors that make up that result. Without an understanding and appreciation of the errors we end up with something Richard Feynman described as Cargo cult science. To what extent do you think so called “alarmists” are guilty of ignoring and deliberately manipulating scientific uncertainty in their mis-characterisation of the effects of man made climate change? How much damage has this cargo cult mentality done to the policy debate?
I asked whether they don’t consider the fact that Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson were amongst the signatories of the Oregon Petition news worthy, and if that is the reason why they obscured Edward Teller’s signature. The question was not posted to the chat.
To participate in the chat is a waste of time. They used the questions by the Heartland Institute to deride them further.
“Taylor made it seem as though Heartland had no problem with its Exxon connection and would be happy if they were funders again.”
And why not? The Climate Scientists don’t seem to have any moral qualms about taking money from Big Oil.
World’s. Slowest. Chat. Completely absurd–why bother?
Here was my question…
Doubt and uncertainty are a natural part of science. It is simply incorrect to take a scientific result and ignore the errors that make up that result. Without an understanding and appreciation of the errors we end up with something Richard Feynman described as Cargo cult science. To what extent do you think so called “alarmists” are guilty of ignoring and deliberately manipulating scientific uncertainty in their mis-characterisation of the effects of man made climate change? How much damage has this cargo cult mentality done to the policy debate?
wow…so there you go:
John Hockenberry:
Julie, I think the planet will answer that question. In many ways “Climate of Doubt” is the story of how difficult it is for a democracy to act in a crisis until the fire is in the stairwell. Coll says it well at the end of our story. Circumstances will move us forward if people on their own, can’t.
My question:
“As a UK sceptic I was recently invited to a meeting of the Royal Society of London on climate. Much to my surprise, when talking to those present, I found it very difficult to know who was and wasn’t a sceptic. I even found myself thinking: “I wish they had badges on so that I could tell”. In contrast on line the debate seems very partisan and I wonder whether you might comment as to whether this could be because the online debate is dominated by the US where it is heavily influenced by the partisan nature of the debate between republican and democratic.”
“The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.”
—Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI
Same BS. Tobacco = cancer deniers same as climate skeptics, funded by oil…scientific consensus…
What the hell? – So which sceptics has John Hockenberry been talking to? –
“The saddest thing about this story is that we heard mostly absolute certainty and dismissive confidence among our skeptic friends while it was our scientist friends were quick to say that doubt is how science is conducted, people questioning each other’s work all the time. The doubt of the scientists was always real but was always about how much we know about the planet and need to know not about the trend of global warming.
Their search for truth and quest to challenge each other’s findings was exploited as “debate” and “uncertainty” by people in the political world. In some ways the scientists didn’t have a chance in this battle… but that is my personal opinion and some of our scientists would not have agreed with me. “
So far, this is all we’ve heard from; does this seem like it’s dragging?
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
2:01 Elizabeth Kolbert:
2:02 FRONTLINE: Hi everyone
2:03 John Hockenberry:
2:03 Elizabeth Kolbert:
2:05 catherine upon:
2:06 John Hockenberry:
2:07 Elizabeth Kolbert:
2:08 John Hockenberry:
2:08 Comment From Ron Pate
2:11 Elizabeth Kolbert:
2:11 John Hockenberry:
2:13 John Hockenberry:
2:14 Catherine Upin:
2:16 Comment From Sean White
2:16 Elizabeth Kolbert:
2:16 John Hockenberry:
2:18 Comment From Tom Barney
2:18 John Hockenberry:
2:18 FRONTLINE:
2:21 Comment From Terry Fife
2:22 Catherine Upin:
2:23 John Hockenberry:
2:24 Elizabeth Kolbert:
2:25 Heartland Institute@HeartlandInstHey
2:26 Comment From Renee
2:28 John Hockenberry:
2:31 FRONTLINE:
2:34 Elizabeth Kolbert:
2:37 Comment From Jim Lakely (Heartland)
2:39 Comment From Julie Fanselow
2:41 John Hockenberry:
2:45 John Hockenberry:
2:46 Comment From Richard Miller, Ph.D.
2:49 Comment From Julie Fanselow
2:51 John Hockenberry:
2:52 Comment From Greg Goodknight
2:53 Catherine Upin:
2:53 FRONTLINE:
2:57 John Hockenberry:
– – – –
Has anybody submitted and not seen their name yet?
.
rk says:
October 25, 2012 at 11:43 am
It would have been better for them to read Robert Zubrin’s, “Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism”: http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=Zubrin%20Merchants%20of%20Despair&index=blended&link_code=qs&sourceid=Mozilla-search&tag=mozilla-20
It’s like being in church. No dissent is allowed, not real dissent anyway.
There was a sycophantic comment from one calling himself Richard Miller PhD. Don’t know if that was some sort of play on Richard Müller PhD.
Apparently, we sceptics are the certain ones, the consensus is full of doubt.
Pick from that what you will, I was sick after the first time a actually read it.
DaveE.
John Hockenberry:
Greg,
The saddest thing about this story is that we heard mostly absolute certainty and dismissive confidence among our skeptic friends while it was our scientist friends were quick to say that doubt is how science is conducted, people questioning each other’s work all the time. The doubt of the scientists was always real but was always about how much we know about the planet and need to know not about the trend of global warming.
Their search for truth and quest to challenge each other’s findings was exploited as “debate” and “uncertainty” by people in the political world. In some ways the scientists didn’t have a chance in this battle… but that is my personal opinion and some of our scientists would not have agreed with me.
I then asked if he was implying all skeptics were not scientists.
I’ve made several comments. Not seen one yet. They’ll pick one where I made some error.
DaveE.
boy, Hackenberry really wants to get moving Forward on this stuff
Comment From Jay Currie
Perhaps, Julie, we wait until the uncertainties which are typical of a very young science are resolved before spending trillions of dollars on “solutions” which may do nothing to actually help (assuming help is needed).
3:05
John Hockenberry:
3:03
Jay what would you do besides another study?
Me:
yeah, Move On guys…the Science is Settled, the only thing left is to Save the World